Again, so simplistic to render it irrelevant.
Do you want the police coming in to your house and searching your stuff? Of course not.
Do you call the police when you do want them to come? Of course you do.
Drug testing for benefits in Tennessee yields only 65 positives
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Again, so simplistic to render it irrelevant.
Do you want the police coming in to your house and searching your stuff? Of course not.
Do you call the police when you do want them to come? Of course you do.
Individual's choice.
Some people are driven, some are not.
You have made that point over and over.
Well, first, let me add my post you responded to:
"theIowaHawk said: ↑
Also, I always love the underlying thought that accompanies thought processes like dirtyglass': If we stop the flow of money to poor people (or lazy, or leeches, whatever you want to call them), they will definitely obtain jobs and improve their status.
Seriously, that is what you believe? Either that or you believe they will somehow end their own lives without causing any disturbance on the public and not costing any other taxpayer money (courts, prison, hospitals, etc.)."
But, no, it isn't racist in any way other than socio-economically. It isn't a belief that "certain people" don't have the capability. It is the understanding that certain circumstances make it incredibly difficult. A person without education is much more likely to be on some sort of assistance. Removing that assistance does not render them educated. You can think of many other examples.
If you mean that it turns out to be racist in effect, sure, but that is the circumstances not the welfare. If poor tend to be minority by percentage and the poor or treated worse by society in effect, in housing, education, training, policing, etc. then the circumstances are what is dictating the racism, not the welfare.
Yes, I do have children, and your question is loaded to the point of nonsense. "Do you like hot dogs or do you hate America?" It is an ignorant question to begin with. You start with the premise that welfare "gives them everything they want/need" and that nobody improves due to that assistance.
Interesting that you bring up children. Do you educate your children (or have it done for them)? Do you train them for things (or have it done for them)? Do you transport (or have it done for them)? Do you pay for all of this? Of course the answer is unequivocally yes. Now how can it be, following your theory, that they ever learned to be responsible? Because you made them wait until Christmas to get their IPad? This is directly correlated. You assist them in the things you think that will prepare them for their lives, their futures, their careers, etc., and you do so financially.
And while doing all of that for your children you argue that it shouldn't be done for others ... because it will lead to their failure and dependence.
It is a flawed thought process, just as I brought it up.
Pepp:
Now, I think your better position is that these things should go more directly to the children, just as they do in your own home. Great! I'm on board! Let's vastly improve their schools, their access to training, transportation, health, etc. and see how that works for them.
If you are willing to do the above, I'll agree to cut off the parents. Otherwise you are refusing them the same things you, likely, believe set your own children properly, and you are all but dooming another generation to repeat the exact things you are complaining about.
Now, I think your better position is that these things should go more directly to the children, just as they do in your own home. Great! I'm on board! Let's vastly improve their schools, their access to training, transportation, health, etc. and see how that works for them.
If you are willing to do the above, I'll agree to cut off the parents. Otherwise you are refusing them the same things you, likely, believe set your own children properly, and you are all but dooming another generation to repeat the exact things you are complaining about.
Here's a couple of studies for you. I know you don't like Cato, so included one from Harvard.
Welfare discourages working.
Reducing welfare encourages it.
Are you thinking I'm not familiar with that argument? Are you also pretending that "your" theories haven't been tried, and "failed"?
Do you really believe that if we just listened to you, the bootstraps would be pulled?
If you read the studies, they refute your claim.
And yes, I'm my experience as a coach, mentor in the business world, and now as a yachting instructor and parent of three I have observed that requiring some independence leads to more independence. My opinion is bolstered by studies such as the two I provided you.
I get that there are some who are truly incapable, but overall we need to remember the old saying:
"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"
Also necessity is the mother of invention, (and learning, and habit changes).
I appreciate that it is never this simple, but here's the deal.
You want a cycle of dependency under the guise that some people just can't make it.
I want a cycle of responsibility and better decision making.
You want to say that I'd let these people rot. I want to say that people who really need assistance have places they can turn, but it isn't nearly as easy as sitting on their couch watching satellite TV all day.
Again, never as simple as it might sound, but the above is how I feel and I understand you'll feel differently. Why not try a real world experiment though? Go to your local McDonald's and ask the workers there if they'd rather work at McDonald's each day or take $100 out of your wallet and stay home. What do you think they'll choose? Obviously this is rhetorical, but you do understand many are already making this exact choice and it is your money (and mine) that they are accepting in lieu of working every day. They are perfectly capable of work though.
You want a cycle of dependency under the guise that some people just can't make it.
I want a cycle of responsibility and better decision making.
You want to say that I'd let these people rot. I want to say that people who really need assistance have places they can turn, but it isn't nearly as easy as sitting on their couch watching satellite TV all day.
Again, never as simple as it might sound, but the above is how I feel and I understand you'll feel differently. Why not try a real world experiment though? Go to your local McDonald's and ask the workers there if they'd rather work at McDonald's each day or take $100 out of your wallet and stay home. What do you think they'll choose? Obviously this is rhetorical, but you do understand many are already making this exact choice and it is your money (and mine) that they are accepting in lieu of working every day. They are perfectly capable of work though.
It seems to me that the three-part questionaire addresses any Fourth Amendment concerns. Applicants are asked if they have used illegal drugs, lost or been denied a job because of illegal drugs, or had any scheduled court appearances related to illegal drug use in the past three months. If they answer yes to any of those questions then there is probable cause to believe they are using illegal drugs and they are then asked to take a drug test. If they answer no to all three questions then they are not asked to take a drug test, unless there is evidence that they lied on the answers. For example, someone applies for benefits and answers no to all three questions, but a check of public court records shows that he was arrested two months ago for cocaine possession. Now there's probable cause to think he lied in the application and he needs to pee in a cup before he gets a check. I don't see that the Fourth Amendment has been violated in any way here.
1. It doesn't implicate the 4th because they are not using it for prosecution.
2. There are virtually no transfer payments that go to corporations. Corporate Welfare is a made up term that the left uses to describe things such as tax deductions and credits. You may oppose some of those, but they are not welfare in any way, shape or form.
It is my understanding that in most of the states that have this requirement, those found to be positive are not necessarily taken off of assistance, but given assistance in a different way, including drug treatment where appropriate
Sure it is. Urine testing applicants for state benefits is unconstitutional because it requires them to waive their 4th Amendment rights (to be free from search without individualized suspicion, i.e. probable cause). Simply changing from a urine test to a paper test that discloses the identical information ("Is this applicant on drugs?), is identical.
1. 4th Amendment protection is not limited to criminal prosecutions.
2. Tax credits are not corporate welfare? Payments to farmers not to plant are not corporate welfare? Price supports are not corporate welfare? Riiiiiggghttt. Even the Heritage Foundation calls it corporate welfare. From the Heritage Foundation's testimony before Congress:
Corporate welfare and crony capitalism is reflected in a variety of different activities, including:
- Direct subsidies, loan guarantees, and technical assistance programs;
- Narrow tax credits to benefit certain industries;
- Regulation and trade barriers; and
- Congressional and presidential earmarks to reward political friends.
The job of the police isn't to raid homes and search your stuff. Their job (in theory) is to protect and serve.
The governments job isn't to provide for those who refuse to provide for themselves. The fourth amendment you guys seem to be stuck on is to protect against unreasonable search and seizures. If you want to use the 4th amendment argument I don't consider it unreasonable to conduct a drug test on a person that is being handed money every month without doing anything for it.
Of course, you have no problem with giving them whatever they want with no strings as you don't expect much from them other than crime and killing if they don't get it. That is the difference between us. You don't have any expectations from these people, and I believe the majority of people receiving government handouts are capable of obtaining and maintaining employment.
I prefer a system where we help those that are actually trying rather than people who just try to game the system to get all the free stuff they can get while doing as little as possible.
How will giving out handouts and welfare with no real skin in the game in terms of having to do anything to receive it lead to future improvements. You guys don't seem to want to require community service to receive it (because "how will they have time to look for jobs?" .HINT, they are not looking for jobs to begin with), you don't want them drug tested. you don't want them to have accountability for what they are using their free money on. Who are we to tell them that they can't buy those Beats headphones with that money?
the system discourages people from earning their keep because if they can make more money at a job, or take on more hours they will lose what they can get for free by not working.
It's not leading to future improvement. It's leading to entitlement mentality and rewards less effort.
A paper test is not at all identical to a urine test. You can easily lie on a paper test, and presumably a lot of people did. But if they find evidence that you lied, then they have probably cause to ask you to take the urine test. And you can't lie on the urine test.
Where you go wrong is that these tests are not being compelled or forced. The aid recipient can simply refuse to submit, and the government cannot force them. They simply make a choice as to whether they want to submit to the requirements for public aid. They have no constitutional right to aid, and thus, the testing is not unconstitutional. Not a single case holds otherwise. Your argument is baseless and silly.
The tests are identical in the fact that the applicant must waive constitutional rights in order to obtain or attempt to obtain government benefits. In fact, the paper may be worse because it requires a person that is using drugs to either commit perjury or self-incriminate (i.e. waive their 5th Amendment protections in addition to their 4th).
Still wrong. There is no constitutional right to the government assistance. They are not being asked to "waive" any rights. It is simply a condition for obtaining benefits to which they are not constitutionally entitled.
Please come forward with a single case that supports your position. There are not any.
You're swinging and missing all over the place here. No one is being forced to commit perjury. These tests aren't being administered under oath. There are no criminal penalties if you get caught lying. They simply make you take the urine test because they now have probable cause. And I guarantee you that thousands of people lied on the test. There's no way in hell that only 1% of any segment of the population is using illegal drugs. I don't care if they're black or white or brown, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, young or old.
No, you are missing the points. If you lie to the state to obtain financial benefits, that's called fraud and you can be criminally prosecuted for that.
The form is also signed under penalty of perjury: "I swear under penalty of perjury (a crime for lying under oath), and all other applicable penalties that the statements on this application, any attachments, and to whoever interviewed me are true and accurate ..."
But they are not forced to sign the form and take the oath...they can simply decline the benefits. Remember, they have no constitutional right to them. Your argument is baseless.
So, St. Louis, answer these questions: How can TSA search people before boarding an airplane? How can there be a metal detector at a federal or state courthouse as a condition of entry?
Last edited:
(1) While I agree there is no constitutional right to state benefits -- the state could simply say no benefits for anyone -- once the state makes a decision to make benefits available, the state cannot then set up a system that requires applicants to waive their constitutional rights in order to receive them.
(2) Because the 4th Amendment has long been interpreted to allow for an exception for safety of the general public at large - the same reason why a railroad engineer may be drug tested without individualized suspicion.
Very well, then. If you say they are opening themselves up to perjury then so be it. You know as well as I do that at least some of the 39,000 or so people who answered no to all three questions were lying. Have any of them been prosecuted for perjury?
But it still doesn't mean anyone's Fourth Amendment rights are being violated. There is no "suspicionless drug testing as a condition to receipt of benefits" going on.
One of the conditions of receiving this benefit is that you are not using illegal drugs. If someone lies on the application to get benefits for which they are not eligible then, as you stated, they have committed fraud and can be criminally prosecuted for that. But the onus is still on the state to prove that fraud while not violating the applicant's constitutional rights.
If an applicant answers yes to any of the three questions then the state has probably cause to ask them to submit to a urine test. If an applicant answers no to all three questions but the state finds evidence to suggest they lied about one or more answers then the state has probably cause to ask them to submit to a urine test. An example of this would be the applicant says he has not been in court for drug-related charges in the past three months, but a cross-check of court records shows that he was in fact in drug court recently.
The only scenario in which someone's Fourth Amendment rights would be violated would be if the applicant answered no to all three questions but the state, without any evidence to the contrary, said "we don't believe you, piss in this cup anyway".
You can argue whether being drug-free should be a condition of receiving benefits, but you can't argue that anyone's Fourth Amendment rights are being violated here.
Again, no one is required to waive their constitutional rights. If they made drug testing a requirement for all applicants then that would be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. If they made random applicants take a drug test then that would be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The only applicants who are being drug tested are those for whom there is probable cause to believe they are using illegal drugs. Probable cause is the key factor here.
So the state's with lesser handouts and more "skin in the game" have demonstrably lower unemployment rates....right?
It's not about unreasonable searches and siezures?
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I, for one ,don't think its unreasonable to ask somebody to take a drug test if they wish to receive free money from the government. As previously mentioned, there is nobody forcing these people to take welfare.
Did you ignore my response to you? I'm all for other, better solutions, but I'll bet you aren't, because they are much more expensive.
I'm all for directing the money to programs that actually help the children, let's let that generational gap be a buffer. Think we can provide the things you believe necessary for your children for a few hundred per month?
You still ignoring the warrant clause? Apparently so. I get that YOU believe it reasonable, but isn't really how that works.
Driving is not protected and a privilege. Why not drug tests for all drivers at any time? You could just decide not to....
hell, i was waiting for you to answer the question I asked first. So, I asked it again.
again, there is no right to be supported by the government. If you dont want to be drug tested, then nobody is forcing you. you don't have to get money from the government. Just because you believe it is a fourth amendment issue does not make it so.
Similar threads
